L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I think you have misunderstood. The poster you responded to is saying that it isn’t necessary, but is fitting.Why was there a necessity for Mary’s sinlessness? Why was it ‘fitting’? For no reason?
The following is my opinion only and if I am misrepresenting the teachings of the Church I apologize and hope that somebody tells me:
Jesus could have come to earth as a full-grown adult, sitting on a throne and wearing a crown of gold and precious jewels. But He came to earth as an unborn child. It is fitting that the vessel He was conceived in would be pure, completely free from sin. So it makes sense that Mary, in whom He was conceived, would be pure, completely free from sin, and also from any inclination to succumb to temptation. The last part of that sentence means that Mary would never sin.
There are probably a million ways Jesus could have come to earth, but there is only one way that He did come to earth, and that is that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, who overshadowed a pure human being (who, like Eve, was born without Original Sin, but who, unlike Eve, never sinned), Mary. Mary is truly “full of grace,” more so than any other human being (with the exception of Jesus). Part of this grace is because she was conceived without Original Sin.
When the Angel Gabriel spoke to Mary, he called her “Full of Grace.” Not “you who will be full of grace by accepting this mission from God,” but “Full of Grace” in that she was already full of grace, literally, absolutely filled with grace. This was all before she even agreed to carry the Christ. This is where I made my error a few days ago and then caught it. I had written it incorrectly.
Does this help??